Poll: Should dueling be legal?
- Thread starter gabe12301
- Start date
I think dueling with swords would be awesome also I am not saying that because I am fencer and want to stab someone in the throat.
Let's see...
If dueling was indeed legal, before every duel you would need a written consent from both parties, checked and co-signed by a notary, plus witnesses who do not know either party.
I suppose they would also have to write their wills, just in case (after all, one of those wills would be used).
Other than that, fire away!
If dueling was indeed legal, before every duel you would need a written consent from both parties, checked and co-signed by a notary, plus witnesses who do not know either party.
I suppose they would also have to write their wills, just in case (after all, one of those wills would be used).
Other than that, fire away!
I'm a strong advocate of legalizing dueling under specific circumstances. E.g. it's only legal if both participants where aware of what they were doing (i.e. not drunk), had a while to think about it etc etc.
But yeah, humans aren't designed to solve everything though talking. Some things need to be fought over.
But like I said, there would need to be regulations in place to make sure it's entirely consensual. File a challenge, accept challenge, wait one week, take drug tests to make sure you're not influenced, then have the duel under regulated forms. Something like that.
But yeah, humans aren't designed to solve everything though talking. Some things need to be fought over.
Also this.Nimbus said:
But like I said, there would need to be regulations in place to make sure it's entirely consensual. File a challenge, accept challenge, wait one week, take drug tests to make sure you're not influenced, then have the duel under regulated forms. Something like that.
a few ground rules to be laid down before a pistol duel:
#1 neutral party adjudicator
#2 person challenged chooses between two pistols both exactly the same and provided by the challenger
#3 each pistol must be a revolver, and have one single bullet.
#4 pistols must be checked by the adjudicator before the duel
#5 duelling parties must have their sleeves rolled up and the pistol must be in the eyeline of the adjudicator at all times
#6 each party must walk a set distance from a certain in opposite directions (this is agreed by both parties beforehand)
#7 the adjudicator calls when the duel begins
#8 pistols must not be raised before this
#9 in case of both parties firing and missing a draw is called and both parties go home, and must settle their dispute via other means.
EDIT: #10 all duels must be registered and all parties must consent. duelling forms are sent off to the government incase of a victory
#1 neutral party adjudicator
#2 person challenged chooses between two pistols both exactly the same and provided by the challenger
#3 each pistol must be a revolver, and have one single bullet.
#4 pistols must be checked by the adjudicator before the duel
#5 duelling parties must have their sleeves rolled up and the pistol must be in the eyeline of the adjudicator at all times
#6 each party must walk a set distance from a certain in opposite directions (this is agreed by both parties beforehand)
#7 the adjudicator calls when the duel begins
#8 pistols must not be raised before this
#9 in case of both parties firing and missing a draw is called and both parties go home, and must settle their dispute via other means.
EDIT: #10 all duels must be registered and all parties must consent. duelling forms are sent off to the government incase of a victory
Killionaire!Jerome9157 said:
OT: No of course it should be.
If people are actually badass enough to do this, ON WITH THE DUEL!
is it not? i mean, how can something two people agree to be illegal? (come to think about it, killing someone on demand is, here in germany)
i am not really sure, as everything related to laws and stuff is quite... complicated, but it is allowed here in germany. in a way.
for example, some (student-) fraternities here still do it, although with strict rules; there has to be a doctor, neutral "judges" of sort, someone who decides for the duelist if he can still fight or not, a secretary who writes down everything, from equip to every single hit, and so on.
you cannot be sued if you fight with someone who agrees to. killing them is a different thing, though (if that's what you meant)
i am not really sure, as everything related to laws and stuff is quite... complicated, but it is allowed here in germany. in a way.
for example, some (student-) fraternities here still do it, although with strict rules; there has to be a doctor, neutral "judges" of sort, someone who decides for the duelist if he can still fight or not, a secretary who writes down everything, from equip to every single hit, and so on.
you cannot be sued if you fight with someone who agrees to. killing them is a different thing, though (if that's what you meant)
Definantly no because it would mean that in an argument a good swordsman (or someone with great aim) could just challenge and kill anyone who disagrees with him/her. Instead of actually making good points.
So being a good swordsman would make you always right, even if you're completely wrong and even though swordsmanship has nothing to do with the actual discussion. So if you'd ever want your ideas to be heard you'd have to become a great swordsman first. It would be the only way to have people actually listen instead of just challenging you.
Sadly to some extent this is also true in modern society: try confronting a guy twice your size about the fact that he's parked on a handicapped spot. Even if you are absolutely right he doesn't HAVE to listen because he can just goombastomp you into the ground. The only way you could force him to listen is by being an even bigger guy yourself. See where this is going?
In modern society such behaviour is at least strongly discouraged by making it illegal but should you make duels legal that barrier would completely vanish.
So being a good swordsman would make you always right, even if you're completely wrong and even though swordsmanship has nothing to do with the actual discussion. So if you'd ever want your ideas to be heard you'd have to become a great swordsman first. It would be the only way to have people actually listen instead of just challenging you.
Sadly to some extent this is also true in modern society: try confronting a guy twice your size about the fact that he's parked on a handicapped spot. Even if you are absolutely right he doesn't HAVE to listen because he can just goombastomp you into the ground. The only way you could force him to listen is by being an even bigger guy yourself. See where this is going?
In modern society such behaviour is at least strongly discouraged by making it illegal but should you make duels legal that barrier would completely vanish.
Allowing people to kill eachother on a whim isn't very beneficial to society.
So, no.
Normally when an act has been made illegal, there has been a pretty decent reason for it. You would have to prove that the original reasoning for outlawing dueling is faulty in order to convince me that it should be legalized.
So, no.
Normally when an act has been made illegal, there has been a pretty decent reason for it. You would have to prove that the original reasoning for outlawing dueling is faulty in order to convince me that it should be legalized.
If you really want to do it, what's stopping you from finding someone like-minded and going somewhere private?
As long as you don't cause any property damage or anyone sees you, the law won't be getting involved. As long as you hide the loser well enough, I suppose.
Anyway, back on topic, I suppose I'm indifferent towards the topic. I dislike it on a personal level, and would have nothing to do with it myself, but again, if two people really want to cut each others' guts out, I can't really think of any good argument against that.
As long as not a single dime of tax money are spent on the issue, that is. Which seems kind of impossible, if it's going to be a system absolutely immune to corruption and abuse, I guess.
As long as you don't cause any property damage or anyone sees you, the law won't be getting involved. As long as you hide the loser well enough, I suppose.
Anyway, back on topic, I suppose I'm indifferent towards the topic. I dislike it on a personal level, and would have nothing to do with it myself, but again, if two people really want to cut each others' guts out, I can't really think of any good argument against that.
As long as not a single dime of tax money are spent on the issue, that is. Which seems kind of impossible, if it's going to be a system absolutely immune to corruption and abuse, I guess.
No. basically it would mean that the legal system acknowledges that murder is a appropriate punishment for minor transgressions or felonies. That's just not right. While i'm torn on the issue of the death penalty (my problem lies with the realities of legal prosecution rather than morality) I don't agree that death or murder is the correct way to sort out problems.
No, because it would mean who's right in an argument comes down to who can shoot the fastest or fence the finest.
You could be the most politically ignorant, racist moron on the planet and still end up president of earth if you could shoot a gun faster and with better accuracy than the ideal candidate for the job.
You could be the most politically ignorant, racist moron on the planet and still end up president of earth if you could shoot a gun faster and with better accuracy than the ideal candidate for the job.
Maybe, if all the right rules go in place.
1) Anyone can say no, to any challenge. No loss of respect or honour for someone saying no. Completely consensual.
2) There must be a legitimate reason. No fighting over spilled milk.
3) The winner must be completely immune from any sort of retaliation.
4) There must be a specified place, so no innocents die.
Damn, looking over all of that, and thinking of the paperwork involved, wouldn't state-sponsered hitmen be much simpler?You know, like Israel does it.
1) Anyone can say no, to any challenge. No loss of respect or honour for someone saying no. Completely consensual.
2) There must be a legitimate reason. No fighting over spilled milk.
3) The winner must be completely immune from any sort of retaliation.
4) There must be a specified place, so no innocents die.
Damn, looking over all of that, and thinking of the paperwork involved, wouldn't state-sponsered hitmen be much simpler?
It has no real need to be legal. Given that people are not so attached to honor that they are often willing to stake their life on the defense of it people would only generally agree to a duel if they thought it was assured that they would win. And given that few people are actually proficient in the use of sword or pistol that they would reasonably consider it probable that they could win it would seem that such a thing would be incredibly uncommon anyway.
By keeping it illegal it reduces the number of inherent contradictions in laws regard killing other people.
On the other hand, as a fencer, I could reasonable expect to best the vast majority of people in the world with a sword but I see little reason to go to such lengths.
By keeping it illegal it reduces the number of inherent contradictions in laws regard killing other people.
On the other hand, as a fencer, I could reasonable expect to best the vast majority of people in the world with a sword but I see little reason to go to such lengths.
Alright, so if she starts getting molested she's on her own. I'll be sure to tell her that before the next time we go to a club or bar. Duels don't happen only because of petty disagreements. Instead of thinking about what people duel for, please, think about what YOU would duel someone over. If the answer is you'd never duel someone to the death, why be in support of having it legal? You keep admitting all these rules need to be attached to prevent abuses and paper work and this and that and blah blah blah. It's like you're admitting all the obvious pitfalls of having dueling legal and then saying, "Meh, whatever. Let's do it anyway." I just don't get the "logic."SultanP said:
First off, how would you solve the problem of someone hitting on your girl now, when duels aren't legal? Do that even if duels are legal, it wouldn't have to affect your life.liquidangry said:
The reason I think duels should be legal, but have all of the safeguards to stop it from being abused, is because I think people should have the option. I'm completely confident that you could find people who would want to do it if they could, and I think they should.
It's in the same vein as why I think suicide and euthanasia should too. It's about freedom for me, and the fact that two consenting people couldn't duel if they want to, without hurting anyone else.
And I wouldn't ever participate in a duel myself, unless I could do something really worthwhile, like kill the pope. I also think that resorting to violence for solving trivial problems, like someone hitting on your woman, is ridiculous. But I'll be damned if I won't defend the right of two consenting adults to do what they want to each other.
Also, I haven't ever heard of a woman worth having who would encourage her man to use violence against someone else.
No. Legitimizing killing as a means to resolve conflicts puts the power in the hands of the physically strong. As much of a mess as our current legal system is, it's probably better than having people slaying each other to decide who's in the right.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for self defense (like, if you're being mugged in a dark alley somewhere by a thug who doesn't care if you live or die), but I'd like to think we live in a time where we don't have to fall back on combat as a last resort to settle our day-to-day disputes.
Bottom line: Legalized dueling would almost certainly encourage the wrong kind of behavior among otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for self defense (like, if you're being mugged in a dark alley somewhere by a thug who doesn't care if you live or die), but I'd like to think we live in a time where we don't have to fall back on combat as a last resort to settle our day-to-day disputes.
Bottom line: Legalized dueling would almost certainly encourage the wrong kind of behavior among otherwise law-abiding citizens.